Talk:List of Wii games/Archive 8

Discussion Archived, Various Updates

I took the liberty to archive the previous discussion into the archives; if any part was still under discussion, please feel free to move it from the archive to the Talk Page.

In the hopes of increasing the verifiability of this list, and the general accuracy of it as well, I'm proposing that we use only the official Nintendo websites for each of the regions as our primary sources (as opposed to IGN's list, which is the current method). Any titles that do not appear on these lists will require a citation. I know it'll take some effort to go through the list and comb through everything, but I think it'll really help. Let me know what you guys think of the idea; any input is much appreciated!

Depending on the feedback, I'll be adjusting the FAQs a bit as well, which is why they're not here at the moment. Thanks for everyone's contributions, they're truly appreciated! -Digiwrld1 (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, IGN seems to be a decent job of updating their lists, so I suppose we can use a combination of IGN and the Nintendo lists.

I've gone through the Japanese release dates and checked them with Nintendo.co.jp's list, and was not able to find the following games on the list(that have supposedly been released): JAWA: The Mammoth and the Mysterious Stone, Shiren the Wanderer 3, The World of Golden Eggs: Nori Nori Rhythm-kei Nissan Note Original Version, and Bust-a-Move Bash. Every other game is listed on the list, and I double checked to ensure I hadn't missed it, so if anyone knows whats up that'd be great.

If anyone can help comb through the European and North American releases to ensure that the dates are correct, and add/remove references as needed (ref no longer needed if on the list at Nintendo, and/or IGN), it would be much appreciated. -Digiwrld1 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no list of upcoming games on Nintendo of America's website. enbob89 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference for Crash Dummy Vs. The Evil D-Troit (and Starblaze: Ultimate Battle). http://www.thewiire.com/news/594/1/Twelve_Interactive_Becomes_Official_Wii_Developer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Withgiven2009 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Request: Share Sorting Code With Other Lists?

Hi. I hate to possibly bring up an issue that has already been brought up, but could someone who knows the code to this list take a look at Chronology_of_PlayStation_2_games and List_of_PlayStation_2_games? Those two pages could easily be merged and simplified if someone could do for them what has been done so nicely for the Wii. Thanks. - Keithustus (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just a standard wikipedia sortable list. The biggest technical hurdle was settling on a standard format for entering data into each column so that it would all sort the same. As for easily merged, well this list was re-done from scratch. As one of the people who did it I can vouch that it was a lot of typing, even though at the time there were far fewer games. If you want to update a mature list like the Playstation 2 one I'd suggest bringing it up on that discussion forum and enlist the help or at least agreement of any maintainers over there. For the technical side, just copy and paste the code from the start of this list to the end of the first game, change the game information and copy/paste from there.Telvin 3d (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Release dates.

I have a dumb question? What are the release dates for Australian games for the Wii? If you don't have an answer to it then how should I find out? Please let me know. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

GameFAQs is a good source, but like I've said many times, THIS is why release dates shouldn't be included in the list. This is almost as bad as when editors were basically ignoring the existence of Europe for Heaven's sake. They've taken notice of Europe, but they still act like South Africa and Australia are European for some crazy reason - that, or irrelevant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They're useful to have, if the size of the article is an issue you should consider splitting it into two or more articles. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just removing the dates was a stupid thing to do. Now there's just less information available on Wikipedia. If we're going to remove the dates from this list, why not add a chronological listing, which lists games by region including my own Australia, South Africa, etc? In the meantime, the main list can have the "first-released" date, listing just the date that the game was first released to a region (as in, if Japan got the game first, it's listed with the Japanese release date), as well as a "regions-available" listing. Aielyn (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

NO gameFAQS is not a source, nice try but no maybe you should do your reading again LINK huh.--Lbrun12415 03:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

plus gamefaqs is all original research.--Lbrun12415 03:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd argue that GameFAQs is fairly reliable since the release data is shared between it and Gamespot, Gamespot itself being a decent enough source. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 04:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes tht is ture but since GAmefaqs is Like wiki every one can add something it is not a relieable source. --Lbrun12415 04:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Data submission on GameFAQs appears to go through review before actually being posted, but I could be wrong. In any case, wouldn't be too fussed as Gamespot has release data as well, on most occasions. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 05:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. GameFAQs has no ability to let anyone just add any content they wish. And Lbrun, don't vandalize Wikipedia by editing other peoples' posts. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really I added something about Iron man the video game that was false but they added it any way proving that GAMEFAQS have no idea what they are doing.--Lbrun12415 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, begs the question of why you added false information in the first place, but I'm really uninterested. GameFAQs really isn't the only place to pick up release date information anyway. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 05:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Animal Crossing Wii has only one proven release date, being a 2008 releas in Japan from the 2007 annual update released by Nintendo of Japan. I am editing the North American and European release dates to be TBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.64.232 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Should released and unreleased titles be separated into two different lists?

Not just for this list but should this be a standard for any list of games for a platform with still frequent releases? It tends to be the case that unreleased titles have far less reliable information available for them so this makes the list overall less reliable. A seperate list would also make it easier to seperate speculation from the confirmed of unreleased games. If there isn't enough reliable information about to make an article for a game there should be at least a link to a reliable source confirming the developer is planning on making the game or has started work on it. -Hybrid360 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea as an interim solution. The lists should be divided into released or confirmed with specific release dates, and unconfirmed unreleased. For example, the title should have a confirmed specific date like July 30, 2008 in at least one region. July 2008, Q3 2008, TBA, and such doesn't cut it. This would reduce the size of the list about in half. As the Wii matures and release dates become less important, a different solution such as the GameCube list can be used. Not only would this cut the size, but would remove speculation to another list, remain sortable, reduce confusion and everyone is happy.Ether7 (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

Nothing fancy, just start dividing the alphabet into more manageable chunks. Perhaps List of Wii games 0-M and List of Wii games N-Z. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, the Wii games list isn't that big. At this time, it shouldn't be split. If I checked right: only a few platforms have been split into several lists: Amiga and Commodore 64. Take a look at List of PlayStation 2 games, it's over double the size of the Wii list, and I see no issues with size there. One thing the Wii list should have: section breaks for each letter, that would help editing. Here's an example of what I mean: List of Game Boy Advance games. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but that would make the sortable table utterly pointless. --Conti|✉ 21:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is in response to A Link to the Past's removal of release dates citing the size of the article. And as far as the sheer size of the article goes he's right. Even on a Pentium 4 this article takes a while to fully load, for the sake of people running slower machines than I it really needs it. If the List of PlayStation 2 games is twice as big then that article too needs to be split.

Also the table of contents really doesn't go well with a sortable table. If you sort first then try to use the table you're sent to the wrong place in the list due to the table's links being hard-linked to specific titles. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought it should be split in three; one page for each region. Each page would have two less release date columns and also fewer games since not every game is released in every region. That would allow for Australian release dates too, as so many have requested. --enbob89 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with region lists as well. Overall, they would be very redundant for the most part. Just about every platform list isn't split into region lists (the only exception is Virtual Console from what I can see). If it's not broken, don't fix it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of region lists is that everything remains completely sortable. This functionality is what makes this page so useful and splitting the page any other way would ruin it. I'm open to any split that keeps all of the current functionality. --enbob89 (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The release dates should stay its useable information. I think we should move it from # - N and O - Z. I also Undid what Link to the past did because it was not right what he did by taking out important information. We should just make two pages. # - N and O - Z.--Lbrun12415 03:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believ that this should be removed

This is a sortable list of released and upcoming Wii games, referred to by their English titles. The Wii first launched in the Americas on November 19, 2006 with 23 titles, including Wii Sports. Release dates for individual countries may vary from the regional dates listed below; a title is listed as 'Unreleased' if it will not be sold in that region. This list does not include games released on Nintendo's Virtual Console or WiiWare services. For lists of those games, please see List of Virtual Console games and List of WiiWare games. For additional information on the Wii's release, including the list of launch titles and the regions they were released in, see Wii launch. --Lbrun12415 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you citing Featured Lists? No? Then what does that matter? Yeah, of course, you don't cite List of Nintendo 64 games. Which acknowledges Japan, ALL PAL regions, and North America. Yeah, I guess being a Featured List isn't enough - the only thing we should base this list on are Start articles without any structure or any attempt to feature them! - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the 0-9, A,B,C e.t.c sections of the page as there easier to edit and search through.Simpsonsfuturama (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But then the list would not be sortable. --enbob89 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They do it on DS Games.Simpsonsfuturama (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And that list is not sortable. --enbob89 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it need to be? I see games lists that are one page and still not sortable. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think it should remain sortable. That's what makes it so useful. --enbob89 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't Split: One of the most useful features is being able to sort by release date, which is currently not possible on the DS games page. I have requested that that page be modeled after all the other list of console games pages. 137.244.215.51 (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To do list

From the to do list:

   * Add Price of each game

Add the number of players and genre for each game

Agreed, it would be extremely useful to include information about a genre of each game. Here is my proposal. It looks overwhelming, but it should look better if we also split by regions. -- Iampad (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	Genre(s)	Exclusive	Japan	Europe	North America
Wii Sports	EAD Software Group 2	Nintendo	Sports game	Yes	02006-12-02December 2 2006	02006-12-08December 8 2006	02006-11-19November 19 2006

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	Genre(s)	Exclusive	Release Date
Wii Sports	EAD Software Group 2	Nintendo	Sports game	Yes	02006-12-02December 2 2006

Can't you add players on the page in the game template and prices are ever changing so you can't do that Simpsonsfuturama (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the to do list. All that information isn't needed for this list. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I would suggest to add a column saying which accessory is related to each game: WiiZapper or Wii MotionPlus are two examples I have in mind which would be great additions to our list. I think a list of Wii Zapper compatible games could be a good addition to the list of Wii games, would you recommend to create a new list instead? XavierPN (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2008

So, why is there STILL no genre column? This list is pretty much useless to people looking for games of a specific genre, as it is now. --Keelhaul (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the list

My suggestion for the list fix.

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	Release date	Regions released
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	1 Nov 2007	Japan, North America, Europe, Australia
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz	Amusement Vision	Sega	2 Dec 2006	North America, Japan, Australia, Europe
Super Paper Mario	Intelligent Systems	Nintendo	9 Apr 2007	North America, Japan, Europe, Australia
Super Smash Bros. Brawl	Sora Ltd.	Nintendo	31 Jan 2008	Japan, North America, (Australia, Europe)
Super Swing Golf Pangya! Golf with Style EU	Ntreev Soft	Tecmo Nintendo EU	2 Dec 2006	Japan, North America, Europe, Australia

Information is covered, and the kb size goes down. Everyone's happy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Below I made some slight adjustments. Let's use flag icons. Also, while subsequent release dates are not as important as first release, future dates should still be noted like I've shown. Ether7 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	Release date	Regions released (Future release)
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	1 Nov 2007
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz	Amusement Vision	Sega	2 Dec 2006
Super Paper Mario	Intelligent Systems	Nintendo	9 Apr 2007
Super Smash Bros. Brawl	Sora Ltd.	Nintendo	31 Jan 2008	( 27 Jun 2008)
Super Swing Golf Pangya! Golf with Style EU	Ntreev Soft	Tecmo Nintendo EU	2 Dec 2006

As I'd imagine the majority of the traffic is from North America, would it perhaps be advisable to use the NA dates as the primary set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.37.231 (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do... you actually have any basis to say that the majority of the traffic is from North America? Chan Yin Keen | ^UserTalk _Contribs 08:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, better the article represent a worldwide view, and show absolute first release date and country(ies).

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	Initial Release Date	Additional and (Future) releases
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	1 Nov 2007

See how the flag of the original release is with the date? Maybe that will make more sense to on-lookers. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The original release can be indicated in the heading. Also, putting the flags in their order of release will make it understood which was first.

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	First Release date	Regions released order (Future)
Super Mario Galaxy	EAD Software Group Tokyo	Nintendo	1 Nov 2007

Ether7 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We should not use Flag Icons, as it slows down the loading of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean in comparing the load time with the gamecube and N64 lists. For now lets just use abbrevations NA, EU, JP, AUS.Ether7 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Noticed an issue with highschool musical Sing It! It was most definately released last year for the wii I sold it when i worked in retail last year —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullboy (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Start of Edits 0-9 & A

I don't hear any objections, so shall we begin? Lets create section headings for each letter on this talk page so we can easier manage/review changes, minimizing double work (We are NOT adding sections to the main article). Post a section for whichever letter you are working on and sign it before doing the work so we know who is doing what. When all is done we can move everything over at once.

Please review the below section for errors. I still need to put all the dates in the same format.-Ether7 (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Title	Developer	Publisher(s)	First Release Date	Region(s) Released
12 (Games)	Phoenix Games	Phoenix Games	TBA	Unreleased
250 Mannin no Kanken Wii de Tokoton Kanji Nou	IE Institute	Konami	31 Jul 2008	Unreleased
428	Chunsoft	Sega	2008	Unreleased
New Beginning, AA New Beginning	Daedalic Entertainment	XIDER Games	2008	Unreleased
Action Girlz Racing	DDI	Conspiracy DDI EU	7 Dec 2007	EU, NA
Active Life: Athletic World	Namco Bandai	Namco Bandai Atari EU	29 May 2008	JP
Adventures of Pinocchio	Phoenix Games	Phoenix Games	20 Jun 2008	Unreleased
Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None	AWE Games	Adventure Company	8 Feb 2008	EU, NA
Alan Hansen’s Sports Challenge	Oxygen Studios	Oxygen Games	7 Dec 2007	EU
Alien Syndrome	Totally Games	Sega	24 Jul 2007	NA, EU
All Star Cheer Squad	Gorilla	THQ	TBA	Unreleased
Alone in the Dark 5	Hydravision Entertainment	Atari	20 Jun 2008	Unreleased
Alvin and the Chipmunks	Sensory Sweep	Brash Entertainment	4 Dec 2007	NA, EU
Amazing Animals	ZzTBA	Success	22 May 2008	JP
AMF Bowling Pinbusters!	Mud Duck	Bethesda Softworks	20 Nov 2007	NA, EU
Animal Crossing Wii	EAD Software Group 2	Nintendo	2008	Unreleased
Anime Slot Revolution: Pachi-Slot Kidou Senshi Gundam II - Ai Senshi Hen	Sunrise	Namco Bandai	27 Dec 2008	Unreleased
The Ant Bully	A2M	Midway	5 Dec 2006	NA, EU
Anubis II	DDI	Conspiracy DDI EU	21 Sep 2007	EU, NA
Aquatic Tales	GAMEINVEST/SEED Studios/RTS Studios	GAMEINVEST	2008	Unreleased
Arctic Tale	Atomic Planet	DSI Zoo Digital EU	3 Dec 2007	NA, EU
Army Men: Soldiers of Misfortune	ZzTBA	DSI Zoo Digital EU	1 Oct 2008	Unreleased
Asterix at the Olympic Games	Etranges Libellules	Atari	29 Feb 2008	EU
Avatar: The Last Airbender—Into the Inferno	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	Oct 2008	Unreleased
Avatar: The Last Airbender—The Burning Earth	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	16 Oct 2007	NA, EU
Avatar: The Last Airbender Avatar: The Legend of Aang EU	THQ Studio Australia	THQ	19 Nov 2006	NA, EU

Ugh, for crying out loud, just split the wii game releases into region-pages, like the wii virtual console is. Problem solved. AND it would help everyone. Americans get their page, and they can look up data; Europeans get their page, and they can look up data; and the Japanese get their page, and they can look up data. - Dwaggie - 8:29am GMT 20/6/08

I'll hold off on continuing this effort until there is a greater support for one format. Part of the reason for starting this is to see how it looks more extensively. Seeing the way the last column sorts does not seem very useful, unless you want to group everything that was released first in each region.

I'd be all for region lists. One complaint is the redundancy, but that can be reduced by putting only certain things for each list. For example, have the master list with just title, developer and exclus. Region specific info is then on the region list: title, publisher and date... Publisher because they are sometimes different for each region. The only thing repeating is the title. We could also add genre to the master list, and rating to the region list.Ether7 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No region-specific lists. Just because the VC games do it doesn't mean ALL lists should. We DON'T need release dates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to put each list into regions. -Wiki131wiki (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Either every single known release date should be listed (Remember Link, that's why you got mad at this page in the first place) or we should go with Wiki's suggestion. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What amazing logic - even though there are many more ideas for the article besides the two ides you claim to be the only options, what you pick are the only options.

Yeah, I'm going to dismiss your silliness. Perhaps we could, God forbid, not list release dates? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to nurture that kind of attitude towards other editor's opinions will get you nowhere on Wikipedia. Act mature towards other even if you don't want to or this is not the place for you. We've already gone over your deletion suggestions, they've been turned down by a multitude of editors. Therefore it would be prudent to lean to other ideas instead of standing your ground in bitterness. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And continuing spitefully responding to my post with "the only options are this extreme or that extreme, make your decision!" gets you nowhere. No other list of console or handheld games separates by region, the only exceptions belong to the VC titles, and only because, as observed, the four region lists have a distinctively different list of games. And I'm sorry, but you and Wiki still clinging to "hey let's keep dates on the list!" does not become a "multitude of editors opposing the idea". I don't see how a discussion which ended with a multitude of editors discussing how the changed list will look is bad for my position. And I'd prefer not to be told to "accept others' ideas" by someone who demands that only two extremely black and white ideas be the only possible options. And just a hint - when the discussion went in my favor, I have no reason to be bitter. The fact that you came in and began taunting me by saying I wanted to list "every single release date that can be found for every single game" (which the only way you could really believe that if you didn't even, you know, read the discussion), and then act like you're in a position to decline sane ideas. The former idea is obviously a joke, trying to force me to accept another user's idea, and you have yet to provide a legitimate reason why reproducing the list x4 is a better idea than simply shrinking the kb size of the terribly large article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with Link in that all or nothing are not the only options. What about the above list idea? Just showing the first release date will keep the artical neutral. Subsequent releases are not important for a listing unless you want to see future releases. I would prefer separate lists for released and unreleased titles over region lists. Thats two lists instead of four, and no redundancy.Ether7 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Separate lists for released and unreleased titles would also take any confusion away from this last column. No parenthesis or future dates, just show regions it has already been released, moving them over from the unreleased list as they become available.Ether7 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply call it Unreleased solves that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling what unreleased solves what? The purpose of the unreleased list would be to show dates.Ether7 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacing the regions released in with an Unreleased allows the info to be under one list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I edited the above like you suggest. I like it, makes for a cleaner list. If we are going to go with this however, I think we still need a separate list to show future releases. Or, maybe add a section at the bottom of this list.Ether7 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I change my mind. Let's just do region lists like most here are supporting. That is the simplest thing to agree on, and will show the information everyone wants.Ether7 (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It will take some doing, but I'm in support of this. It would keep the individual article sizes down while increasing the informational value of the list altogether. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Send in the recruits! There is already a North America list that redirects here. I'll copy this list over and then we can start weeding it.Ether7 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which table design are we using at this point? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that can be decided on a region by region basis. For now I am just using the current table layout, putting the appropriate titles in each region. North America is done, but needs to be checked over for blunders. I would consider removing the exclusive column and adding region specific ratings, genre, etc. as space allows.Ether7 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Region split discussion

I've started a discussion here: :Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_Wii_games_is_now_split_by_region about it. Ether made the other lists with very little discussion about the matter. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rob, we should discuss it here instead, because there hasn't been any response over there. I do agree with you, though - shouldn't there be more of a discussion on whether there's a consensus to split the article before doing this drastic change? Two people are not enough of a consensus to a change this drastic. The 360 and PS3 lists are more than able to handle games released in multiple regions without having to split it into multiple lists - certianly we could take some cues from them on how to organize this list instead of just changing it on a whim? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And looking at the version LttP reverted back to, it's the exact same format as the PS3 and 360 game list articles. Nobody's had any problem with that format used in those articles - what exactly was so bad about this format that the Wii list had to be different? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Xbox or PS3, but Nintendo makes a mess of things with different titles for identical games in different regions. Besides that many games are released in only one or two regions or they have different publishers in different regions. I for one liked the fact that the lists was split up for the different regions. It made things a lot clearer. If possible, please split the list again. NoAlias (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the List of Wii games should be spilt in to multiple region lists. It would make everything easier. Wiki131wiki (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked this split pages too. Much cleaner. --enbob89 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of reducing the kb used, it just took the article and made it 3x as long, just separated. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I like the page as it is. It's the most useful as one page, but if it's going to be split for whatever reason, the region lists are the way to go. --enbob89 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet, in region-separated lists, there could be more information. Wiki131wiki (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We split to reduce size, and the first thing that's suggested is "we can make these lists even more huge!!"? It doesn't HAVE to be a split. The only reason a split was proposed was because people wanted to put excessive information on the lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I proposed the split because you were griping about the article being too large AND demanding that Australia dates be included or else none of the dates could be included. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Wii games (North America) and List of Wii games need to be merged because there are revisions that are not on this page. Wiki131wiki (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This list urgently needs to be resplit. It was not just two of us agreeing, but there was much sentiment toward it before that... I see more like 4 or 5 of us agreeing. It was a lot of effort splitting it, and the longer it is reverted the more effort it will be to keep updated. I feel for regular editors like Enbob who agree the region split is the way to go. Also, It is not all redundant as publishers can be different, release dates of course, and other region specific info can be added such as ratings. As to the 3 lists combined being bigger than the original list; It does not matter as they are separate lists with less load time. Sorry I did not respond earlier to this mess being reopened, as I was on vacation this past week. Ether7 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, besides the fact that it takes 3x as long to find info on it, besides the fact that it makes it completely impossible to find any information outside of the three top regions on it, besides the fact that people are using the split lists as an excuse to make them even larger than they are, you want another reason on top of all of that? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Most are only interested in info for their own region, so it does not take 3x as long. Info outside the top three regions can be listed on the main or a separate list (Austrailia for example). Additional info (even larger) never hurts, unless it gets too big. If you have more reasons I'll listen. On the flip side, keeping just one list is too long with the only option being less information, less usefullness. Region lists is justified for VC but I don't see it as a different situation. There are many games that are released in multiple regions for that as well. Ether7 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a claim such as that how, exactly? Did you poll one person on their interest in this list? And extra info "not hurting" is the most laughable argument in these kind of arguments. The fact of the matter is that the split is only proposed just so that the lists can have excessive information. There's no reason to split if the content of the article can be limited. No other console games list has done this, why should this one, which is much smaller than most others? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is only common sense that tells me people are interested only in information that is useful to them. If a game is not available to them it only amounts to clutter that they have to sift through. That is not true at all - the split was done to reduce individual article size and increase clarity. Additional useful information is a separate issue where further expansion is available. This is the largest of the 7th generation lists; 57 KB over its limit, and also falls in line with the direction of VC. Ether7 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. And you are whom that decides what information is useful?
2. And yeah, here's an idea - maybe it's the largest because other list makers care about maintaining its size?
3. Um, so, you're comparing splitting a list to three lists with mostly redundant content (as most games released in one region are released in others) to multiple lists for a service that has very, very, very different release schedules (NoA, NoE, NoAu, NoK, and NCL can choose to release any game they choose, and are under no obligation to follow a release schedule). It is a completely different situation that the Wii cannot relate to at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I decide what is useful to myself, as does everyone, but that is besides the point. The point was that the usefulness of information is according to ones own interests.
2. Maybe its the largest because it has the most games available.
3. Please rephrase/clarify this point. Ether7 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. To EVERYONE'S interests. You're clearly establishing that you are defining one's own interest based on what you BELIEVE to be correct, and you are not a good source for information.
2. By 100. And the KB size is 40kb higher. And Xbox 360's list is still above the limit, noticeably so.
3. Look at the various VC lists. Notice the redundancy? No? Well, maybe - just maybe - it's because there is no redundancy! The release dates for games released on the VC vary, and not only that, each region follows whatever path they feel like. If one region releases EarthBound, it has no ability to get other regions to release. You can't compare three redundant, split lists to five not redundant split lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There are of course many repeated titles, but yes they do appear less redundant because they have had time to develop separately. That can be the case with the Wii region lists as well; if given time and a chance. Ether7 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Every repeat title there is there by literally 100% coincidence. If a game is released in two regions, it's not because there's any cooperation between divisions of Nintendo, it's because one division of Nintendo decided to do something another division happened to have done already. With Wii games, redundancy is completely intentional, as it's a collaborated effort between the divisions to release games. The lists are, by a matter of fact and reality, redundant. They cannot, by the logic behind all other lists and its itself, not be redundant. The VC list has NEVER been redundant. All lists started with different games, and rarely have ever had a game release at a same or similar time, if ever. Wii games constantly have similar release dates. Look at the Mega Mans - they're coming to the VC more than a year after they came out in Europe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait hold on Link didn't you start fighting with people b/c you wanted to add another section that includes Ausralia. You shouldn't yell at this user b/c he wants to include it on a different page.

Um, hi? I'm pretty sure that I'm not barred from arguing against something that has a nonexistent precedence. There's been no argument that the article can't be reduced to limit size, the only thing that's ever been argued is "we want this info". Instead of limiting info, which is what is supposed to be done, people split the info up. Splits are only necessary when there MUST be a split. And there only MUST be a split when nothing can be done to reduce the content. Are you implying that nothing can be done? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this Holy Grail of 'Reducing size'? Why is that the only reason to split a list. I thought that the MAIN reason to split an article would be: Clarity. Then, if this can be achieved with less data in the lists, all the better. Right now, the list is too obfuscated and bulky. Once again I state that the different regions usually have different titles for the same game. And the publishers also change from region to region. Why is nobody considering the 'clarity'-angle here? NoAlias (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is none. I completely agree that the focus should be how understandable the information is, not how much of it there is. If expanding articles was such a bad thing then stub and expansion templates would not exist on Wikipedia. Keeping the size down is a good thing, and it keeps useless information from cluttering up an article. But taking it to the point where you're worried/worrying others about adding meaningful data isn't very helpful. According to guidelines it's more important to keep individual article size down so that people with slower connections and older computers won't stall out loading the page. This was taken care of perfectly with the region split articles, despite the fact that they're totaled size was far larger than the combined article. I still vote yes on re-splitting by region, Link is the only person currently stonewalling that move. Outside of him, there is a very clear consensus on what the editors involved in this want to do. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Lets just vote and make it official... there is no use discussing it further. Ether7 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It's not the only reason. However, there's a whopping zero legitimate reasons TO split. In an article, content can be split because it's discovered to be notable, or because it's making the article too big and there's no way to fix that without splitting the content.
2. The list does not have to have excessive levels of information. If you say that you split the article for the sake of clarity one million times, it still wouldn't erase the fact that you want EXCESSIVE clarity, the ability to add much, much more content to the lists than there should be.
3. And as we can see, the famous "twisting your argument to make it seem like it's worse than ours". You call it expanding, just like someone would call adding lists of levels, items, and a full walkthrough of a game to an article. That's not expanding. That's padding the article, and so is this. Expanding is adding useful content that doesn't make the size of the article excessive.
4. I am? My bad, I guess the fact that multiple people have opposed splitting doesn't count - must be imaginary people!
5. So basically, you suggest that we should do something never done ever. The lists have never been split by region, because it's a bad idea (and by the way, those people aren't actually figments of your imagination, those ARE people who oppose the move - Hell, I didn't even know it was split until someone else disputed it). Can you give any reason why there shouldn't be an Australian list? Many, many games have been released in Australia and have a unique release date, so the list is creatable. It's a snowball effect. The only proper split of a list is A-B-C. As it stands, there is NO reason to split. People are insisting it to be the only proper thing to do even though there are multiple ways of solving the problem that DOESN'T split articles (reminder: A flower is more beautiful than scatted petals), and people are using this split to add even MORE information to the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Region split discussion (break)

The list is fine the way it is. Do not remove region release dates, it is the only reason the list is useful for me (and possibly many others). If you must split, then keep all data and do it by region, like Enbob89 suggests. Also I don't think that two users (A Link... & Ether7) should be able to come in and cause drastic changes on their whims. Gqwu (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no must but according to the Wikipedia guidelines, an article over 100 KB "Almost certainly should be divided". Given that is your vote still no? A split by region will retain release dates. Ether7 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We could just leave it as is... I proposed the split because Link would not let go how large the article was (As I stated above). Since he was un-pleased with the efforts to change that then why don't we just drop the discussion where it is right now and simply continue developing the article as it was in the first place? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Ether, under your logic, if an article is large because it has the entire Pokémon Emerald strategy guide from IGN, it should have to be split. Here's your options - if you think that the only way to reduce size is to split the article, then you concur that this logic is true for bad content in an article as well. The other option is that the guide should be removed, instead of being split. If that's true, then the suggestion that the only way to reduce article size is to split articles is a farce. You've failed to give any reason why we need this extra content, and why the only option is to split the article. Care to try again in spite of that?
2. Is there some reason that you constantly stick to this attitude that because I didn't accept something I disagree with, there's no other way than to stick with what we've got? God forbid that you pretend that any suggestion other than your own exists in the entire universe? Maybe, JUST maybe, we could *gasp* use one of the other many proposals, such as one of the many proposals RIGHT above this whole discussion? I'm just curious why a lack of reason for this content to be on the list doesn't exist, but people fight for such content regardless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Link, I somehow missed this response earlier. At the bottom I've given a suggestion with reason to split just Japan. We can try other things to reduce size, but I don't believe enough can be done (while keeping release dates) without doing at least one split. Ether7 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I do agree with Link that the article is too large as is. I also went through a lot of effort creating region list and hope it was not in vain. They solved the problem, added clarity. Ether7 (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked the work you did, I doubt it was easy. This is why I originally proposed the split be by alpha and not region. A split by letters would result in a lot less repeated code (i.e. the same game three times on three articles) and still keep things closely knit. This is the way that the main List of video games articles are kept so it only seemed logical to me. If Link doesn't want any kind of split out of fear that it will introduce "useless information" then why not just keep it the way it is until someone who can interact well with others comes along with a size complaint? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't solve the problem. Taking a problem and multiplying it to make three bigger problems is not fixing anything. Split lists will, inevitably, have added content far in excess of anything necessary on lists because of people saying "it's small enough!". The articles are about 85kb, 255kb in total. Anyone looking for general information on the games have to visit all three lists. And if you say "people would go to the articles", are you also implying that they would not go to the articles to find the info for a single release date? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, when you act as one who deserves to be interacted with, I'll bother to do so. You have consistently ignored every single suggestion provided that isn't yours. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, a split per letter will also introduce some problems and a necessity to duplicate information. For example: If I was looking for information on the game 'Minicopter' I would look under 'R' because it is called 'Radio Helicopter' in Europe. A Japanese visitor would try to find it under 'P'. Hence you will have to duplicate the information for games that have been released under multiple names. This problem makes a split by letter as uneconomical as a split by region. I for one think that the users will be interested in games that have been/will be release for their region only. After all, those are the only games that they can play on their system. Therefore the duplicated information will not bother the users. If you choose to keep the alternative titles together, as they are now, which one will be leading? The NA title, the first one to be released? or perhaps the Japanese one? You see that this will cause more discussions. NoAlias (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why there are Wikipedias in different languages. Because this is the English Wikipedia, if a game goes by different names then the English name is used in place of all of them and the alternate names are mentioned within the article. In the case of differences between North American and European titles I believe that North America has seniority (i.e. Dance Dance Revolution, not Dancing Stage). So even if so, no titles would have to be duplicated (In fact, you can see this already in action on the list as is, several titles with European differences are mentioned in the same cell below the American title). But hey, if we decide that regional is the way to go then I'm for that too. Seriously, this article is hard to load on my computer now. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This brings another thought to my attention. Games released in Japan are in Japanese correct? Anyone in Japan that wants to play games then needs to know Japanese. So, we don't need a Japanese release list on the English Wikipedia because it is most likely already on the Japanese one. We therefore only need region lists for North America, Europe, and Australia. If anyone wants to see games in a different language, arn't there tools they can use to do transliteration of pages? Ether7 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• facepalm* - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we should have a Japanese list. This is the English Wikipedia, but it has a worldwide view. There are Japanese exclusive games and Japanese specific release dates so we shouldn't leave those out. My point to make was when it's a choice between which title to use in a list, it should be American English biased unless there is no American English option (Then you simply use the best option available) (i.e. if a game is released in Japan, Russia and Europe you use the European title. If there is no English option it might be best to use the original title or most popular title). --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The titles released in Japan are more different than anything else. That in itself could justify: not removing but separating just Japan into a region list and keeping Europe and N. America together. It might save enough space to make it worthwhile. I could compromise on that if Link is also willing? Ether7 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article won't be split because enough people realize it's not appropriate to split. You've not once explained why splitting is necessary, and all that's been seen is people try to split articles so they can make three huge articles with even more unnecessary content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes your opinion counts, I only assumed you forfeit when you gave no response. If reducing article size is seen as necessary, then there is reason. Further above I said, "We can try other things to reduce size, but I don't believe enough can be done (while keeping release dates) without doing at least one split." We can try regardless as every bit helps. If there is still interest we can discuss in a new section without region lists in play, just techniques to reduce size. If there is no further interest I agree to drop everything and leave the list as is. New Section? Aether7 (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't assume people "give up" just because the discussion ends. And of course you say that, you WANT the split to happen. I can't imagine that anything that doesn't involve a split would be satisfactory. And your argument is faulty based simply on that you're eliminating a legitimate option, and no reason has been provided to keep those three release dates. Looking at the split lists, they're going to keep growing, and eventually, they're going to be just as big as this list is. Are you gonna split those lists, too? We had a perfectly acceptable set-up, that many had agreed to. It won't hurt its feature list possibilities at all, and will probably help it, what reason do you have to keep this excessive, redundant content? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out (to the people that didn't notice): Aether reverted my redirects for the region split articles (which Link then correctly reverted back). This discussion is NOT over, and I see Aether's reverts as bad faith. Wait until the discussion is over, before changing things around. Also it should be noted: voting on Wikipedia doesn't always solve things. As I stated before: seperate region lists are redundant at this point. There isn't that many exclusive games, and this list (for all regions) can be made to look decent as a viewable and editable list. As Link stated: the region lists would grow too. Then what would happen? You would want to split them probably, and then we would have even more redundant lists. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that there are other options that would be satisfactory above a split. I'll list them in a new section. Aether7 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good ahead and do that. Either way: those redirects are just fine until the discussion ends. I forgot to mention before: the whole voting nonsense was a total of THREE days. That's certainly not a suitable time for voting (even if voting were the acceptable route to go). Shall I bring this up at the Video Game project talk page again? I recall a majority of people there were fine with one Wii games list, not several redundant ones. Remember: this talk page doesn't just instantly decide how the article goes. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Region split Vote

Please no discussion in this section, keep that above. Just vote Yes or No to Region lists and sign your post, Thanks.

I vote *Yes. Ether7 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

*Yes. Wiki131wiki (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

*No. No reason to split the articles (size reduction can be done in many other ways, and splitting is only done for the sake of adding tons more content than is needed). Not one list, with the exception of a completely unrelated platform (VC), does this, and for some reason ONLY this one article has to be split? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I really don't see how voting will resolve this, WP:VOTE. Given this, and despite being a WP:CVG regular I won't be submitting a vote. Better approach would be to widen the discussion and invite some seasoned wikipedia editors. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Gqwu (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

YES.--Lbrun12415 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No - it's just excessive and unnecessary to split them. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I vote Yes on splitting this article in for the different regions. NoAlias (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: user has only edited this talk page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Simpsonsfuturama (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote Closed

*x2 for discussion. Ether7 (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Region Split Vote Discussion

(Please use this section to discuss the outcome and application of the vote)

The voting has stalled, been open for more than a day. I suggest it should be closed soon. Lets give it another day from the time of this post for any stragglers to vote and add to the discussion. I hope we can reach a consensus based upon a clear majority. Right now I'll give that a 4-3 lead is not very clear. Ether7 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's stalled because people realise a vote isn't the way to resolve this. --Oscarthecat (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we encourage more discussion by weighing the vote toward those that participate? Ether7 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Vote is now closed with 5 yes's and 3 no's. Wiki, Link and myself are the only ones voting that also participated in the discussion; Gqwu moved his comment into the discussion, but made no further reply; NoAlias discussed, but is too new to give any weight. I'm giving 2 votes to discussion participants (minus NoAlias) and 1 to non-participants.

Weighted Vote:

Yes 7; No 4

63.6% approval Ether7 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My vote is for splitting the lists by region i mean we allready have a usa page right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullboy (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

List bugged? Entries are missing, but show up in edit window

After all the turmoil of splitting and re-merging the list, some game entries are now strangely missing. At least 4 NA games are missing which were previously on the list. Two of them are The Sims 2: Castaway & The Sims 2: Pets, I have not finished combing through yet. The strange part is that when I try to add them back in by clicking edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_games&action=edit) I see the entries in the edit window, but they do not show up in the actual article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games). Can someone who understands the wikipedia markup well take a look and see what is going on? An old version which has the entries and displays them correctly is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_games&oldid=222105502). You can check the pages for the entry in question quickly by doing a Control+F find for 'casta'.Gqwu (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Found the problem, there was an unclosed reference tag, fixed. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

North American Column

The North American column is not working. Wiki131wiki (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time it broke. Is it because the list is too large? 216.174.25.7 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, same place as the reference tag issue. Whomever entered all those Simple 2000 games in needs to preview their code before applying the edits. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I knew something was discombobulated about those when I put them in. --enbob89 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The North American column is not working again. Wiki131wiki (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And Europe. Aether7 (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, the culprits this time were the Naruto games and Rock Band 2. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with List of Wii games (North America)

This list has to be merged with List of Wii games (North America) as there are many revisions on that page that are not this page. Wiki131wiki (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Region Split (Japan Only)

Compromised split proposal: The titles released in Japan are more different than anything else. That in itself could justify separating just Japan into a region list while keeping Europe and N. America together. It might save enough space to make it worthwhile. We can also discuss other techniques to reduce size without removing release dates, however, at least one split is needed to get under 100 KB. Ether7 (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be an option, but sence there is no discussion of this proposal, I will withdraw it and refocus on splitting all the regions. We had over 60% approval for that afterall... I think its the way to go. (btw, username changed from above)Aether7 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, we need a regional split. Super Ranger (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why do we need to restate the same list x3? What happens when the region lists get too big? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pikmin Wii

Pikmin is definitely confirmed. However, we do not know the platform, name, release date, or developer, so we can't even find a list to put it on. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore

For the record, the video game Spore has not been formally announced to be for the Wii. Yes, there was all of that speculation a while back, and the developer has stated a desire to make a Spore for Wii, but the Spore coming out this September is not for the Wii at all. Rather than deleting mention of it until there is concrete proof of a future Wii version (I was reverted the first time for some reason), I changed the dates to TBA, since there is currently no evidence of a Wii version being released in September, let alone if one is being developed. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as someone who is unfamiliar with the layout here, what is the difference between "exclusive" and "console exclusive" games? Aren't they the same thing? This may need to be clarified on the article for others who also find this confusing. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It is confusing, I'd recommend removing the whole column and save space. I think console exclusive means it apears on just Nintendo console but may also apear on the PC for instance. Aether7 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This game is such a headache. For some reason everyone insists that it's only speculation. Spore was unofficially confirmed for Wii a couple of times when Will Wright got ahead of himself and sort of half-announced it in interviews. He wasn't very clear about it and it was debatable if Spore was actually coming to other platforms. Then he confirmed it in an interview in October [1][2][3][4][5][6]. It's confirmed. Not speculation or a developer's desire to make a Wii version (if every developer who's expressed a desire to work on Wii actually did, this list would be twice as long). Comes up pretty fast if you Google it. And yes, the verison coming out in September will not be on Wii, so the release date should be TBA. --enbob89 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Article size reduction

Here are some things that could be done that have not been discussed. I would find these preferable before a split:

1. Change the date format so it takes less space.
2. Remove the exclusive column.
3. Remove developer (publisher is more general information)

Other thoughts? So you know, I would prefer the split before removing release dates. I hope to discuss these above options first. Aether7 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The developer section should go. Exclusive could go as well. These would help reduce the size and loading times issues. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the first genuine attempt I've seen to come to a compromise, hats off to you gents. The only thing I'd change is use Developer over Publisher as this is generally more accurate to the game's creation (i.e. Spider-man 3 was developed by Vicarious Visions and published by Activision. It would give the impression that Activision made Spider-Man 3 when they did not). --AeronPrometheus (talk)

Thanks. Publisher is more general information but not less accurate because it is still the publisher. They still say something about the game because they have to agree to publish it within their quality standards. Publishers are bigger, more recognizable, so more likely to be helpful to people looking for general information about a game. So I still think developer should go. Aether7 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So everyone knows what I mean by changing the date format, it seems that 22 Jul 2008 would save more space than 02008-07-22July 22 2008 when you look at the length of the code. I think this would be a top option because it requires no loss of information. Aether7 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, I didn't know that template existed. Looks good to me, I'd say go ahead and start converting and let's see how much space it saves. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think removing developers is a good idea. That's pretty pertinent information. Exclusive column can definitely go though. I was never a fan of that. --enbob89 (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I could live with them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Looks like a lot has been done already. Thanks everyone for helping and supporting this! I would like to put width parameters back in - 34, 24, 14, 14, 14 looked good on preview, but right now I keep timing out when I try to save it. I think it helps make the release dates look less crowded.

Also, the biggest task will be changing the dates to the shorter format. We should make this a collaborative effort. Just put a note here where you are editing (A-B for example), so we don't double the work. I would start myself, but don't feel comfortable doing anything at the moment because my network is slow. Thanks again. Aether7 (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a sampling of the A's and knocked down 2 kb, took me about 15 min. I'm thinking we could save about 20 kb total. I'll review then move on to B-C. Aether7 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Did just through B, will do more over lunch hour. Aether7 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will continue where I have time available, doing one letter at a time. In case anyone wants to help, at this point just jump in the middle somewhere, no need to note it down unless we get a lot of help. There is no big rush to get this done as there is little disruption to the list while in the process. Aether7 (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The size reductions look good. There is no important information lost. Perhaps this is an idea: The most repetitive information in the list is the publisher's name. Would it be an option to use abbreviations for the publisher's name? Naturally, the abbreviation would have to be added in a small list to show the full name, but the size reduction would be several kilobytes. It would even be possible to reduce the size of the links to the publisher's wiki page by linking to the page only once (in the 'abbreviations table') and have all the abbreviations in the main list link to the 'abbreviation table' on this page. This is just a wild thought, feel free to reject or discuss this. NoAlias (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Release Dates

That's not the objective of Wikipedia. Why is there not one reason provided that we need to keep all three release dates? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What is not the objective? We can talk about this, but your input in these other options would be most appreciated. I would like to find something we agree on first so we can proceed with at least something, then talk further on things we disagree. Aether7 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we go ahead with what can be agreed on? Someone yank out the exclusive bar for example, and let's go from there. Does anyone want to argue that that information needs to stay? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

After removing the trivia about being exclusive AND the developer for all the games, it still has more than 40kb to go. I can't imagine any content that could be dropped that would reduce it to an acceptable level besides the two extra release dates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article has nowhere "to go", this isn't a weight loss program. The purpose of all this discussion (should it have one) is to lean the article as much as possible without sacrificing notable information that would be useful to readers. Since no consensus can be reached on the split at the moment this looks like the best way to go.

Due the list being sortable, what does everyone think the reader would benefit better from? Sorting by developer or by publisher? Because this is a mixed list at least one of the two should stick around and while I'm partial to developer I can swing either way. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think both are completely necessary, but if it has to be only one, it should be publisher. --enbob89 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on WP:VG resulted in a consensus to reduce the dates, does that magically not matter anymore? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is as much a consensus on removing the dates there as there is a consensus to split the article here. Ergo, nowhere has consensus in any direction been reached. There have been decisions heavily leaned towards but after all this discussion there is still someone that disagrees with the majority. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was fairly strong. It was pretty much going to happen, except that Aether opposed it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the consensus here? That did happen? That only you opposed? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, most would think that the people who voted in the much wider consensus would still count. You can't just create a new discussion and say that this limited discussion erases the consensus found. Basically, the discussion was formed with little to no input from the support for the removal of release dates. What had happened is that a clear consensus was formed on a wider forum of opinion, and then those few who opposed it in that discussion had brought up the issue in hoping that they could disrupt the modification of the article. And just to clarify - some of the support for moving or keeping release dates comes from users who have simply not been on Wikipedia very long. Aether has been here for about a month, and NoAlias has only edited this talk page (which makes me think that there was some canvasing outside of Wikipedia). The discussion on VG is legitimate, and should have been applied. And to top it off, there are many lists that use only one release date. Fact of the matter is that after removing developers and exclusive status, there's STILL a size issue. Splitting is not appropriate, because anyone with real Wikipedia experience that splitting before reviewing other size reduction options is not the proper course of action. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting is not consensus, it never has been and it never will be. This is not a vote, ever, and the vote that occurred carries no weight in this discussion. The discussion here, on this talk page, is the discussion regarding this article. posting a notice on other project talk pages to come here and weigh in is one thing, but trying to take the conversation elsewhere isn't going to accomplish anything. It just splits the discussion and the problem that Aether pointed out happens, people involved in one discussion are oblivious to the other. I honestly have no idea where this other "consensus" comes from either, could you link us to it?

Also this is not a discussion about how you feel about other editors. Just because someone hasn't been here long enough for you to consider them as much a part of community as yourself doesn't make their edits or comments any less valuable or valid. Sadly the two you pointed out have kept a way cooler head about this than you have, and instead of posting jabbing remarks and relentless sarcasm they have, with everyone else, been trying to come to a common solution that we can all agree on. The only reason I'm involved in this at all, the only reason I posted the split proposal, was to come to a compromise with you after you kept trying to delete the dates without any discussion at all. Release dates are a valuable part of this article. I've seen many editors including myself tell you that and every attempt to remove them has been reverted because there is and likely will continue to be a staggering agreement against their removal. It doesn't matter what other articles look like, there is no style guideline against release dates, they're not going anywhere. You have to start looking for something to agree with, anything, out of the many other options that have been proposed be it mine or someone else's. Because if you can't and all you do is disagree when a plan of action is made you're comments aren't going to matter anymore. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"I still vote yes on re-splitting by region, Link is the only person currently stonewalling that move. Outside of him, there is a very clear consensus on what the editors involved in this want to do. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)" My bad - I guess you meant to say "this isn't a vote when it's convenient for me to say it's not". And I'm just spitballing here, but you don't have any grounds to say that a discussion about this article taking place on another page, that was made aware of to everyone involved in the discussion here, another page which I might add has many, many, many more users and more opportunity for a larger consensus, do you? And hey, good to know that release dates are so necessary, so necessary that several game lists don't have them. So necessary that having an excessive size for a list of video games is necessary. And I like how you're trying to form an argument of "staggering opposition to their removal" based on the idea that if the discussion where a staggering number of people supported their removal and several of them worked for days on making a good set-up for the article. Nice. Oh, and my bad, I guess I didn't just spend an hour removing the exclusivity info and developers to see if it would make the article short enough to be able to keep release dates. Nice to know that Wikipedia has members who like to make random, completely untrue statements to win an argument. And no styling guideline? Besides, like, the fact that they make this list one of the BIGGEST lists of video games on Wikipedia? And the fact that the split is completely unprecedented and unnecessary, and that splits are NOT the first course of action in reducing the size, cutting the fat is? Oh, and that's very nice that my comments don't matter because I think that your bad ideas are bad. Yeah, no one (except for the staggering consensus to remove the release dates) agrees with me. Besides the staggering consensus to remove the release dates. Oh, wait, my bad, Wikipedia policy says that the consensus was imaginary. Just curious, what Wikipedia guideline/policy/essay says this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And to Enbob, publisher is more well-known. When they want to find games released by Nintendo, if they only do developers, it will miss every game developed by Intelligent Systems, HAL Laboratory, etc. - basically, any developer of Nintendo's that does not have Nintendo in its name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not involved in any other discussion. While this discussion doesn't determine everything, that one shouldn't either. Release dates are the most useful information on this list. If anyone wanted just a pure list of games they could go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wii_games. There are also lists of games for different publishers, developers. For example, here is Nintendo's list List of video games published by Nintendo. So there are other places to find information on Wikipedia, but where are we to find release dates besides this list? One would have to go from article to article to look them up. Aether7 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, at this point compromise has be reached first. The steps to remove the exclusive and developers tabs and to shrink the code for the release dates is probably the only real progress that has occurred since this all began. I will say that the page loads a lot easier for me personally now. And since games are being added all the time there's nothing that's going to stop this list from getting bigger than it ever was in the near future. At some point a different approach is going to have to be taken to keep the article manageable. Removing relevant information from the list is a bad idea, the list would be nothing but linked titles and would no longer justify its own existence. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you not being involved in a discussion mattered, there'd be a lot of discussions whose results would be now cancelled out. The discussion was between many members of the project, who have worked on many articles. It's a legitimate discussion, and just because you weren't there doesn't mean it doesn't count. And we don't NEED a list of release dates. They can go to the article. Where's the list of multi-player games? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia Exclusive

Just curious, but what would you do if a Wii game was released and was exclusive to Australia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How many games in the history of video games have been Australian exclusives? If there are any, they could all be made into List of Australian exclusive games. As for inclusion in the List of Wii games, I don't see a reason to plan for something that probably won't happen. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As we have discussed, if we go to region lists Australia could be more easily accommodated. But as it stands, another option is to have a separate list just for region exclusive games outside the top three? Aether7 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I has an idear... Make a single column for release dates, and <br> each date like we do alternate game titles and additional or regional publishers. It would look like this:

Title	Publisher(s)	Release date(s)
Pokémon Battle Revolution ポケモンバトルレボリューションJP	Nintendo	14 December 2006JP 25 June 2007NA 22 November 2007AU 7 December 2007EU

This would give the other columns more room and allow for additional release dates beyond the "top three". It also cuts back on some coding without sacrificing information which is always good. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And as far as sorting by date, just list the dates in chronological order and the table will still sort by first release. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There are Australian developers, and if they lack an American or European branch, how will they be included? And if we add Australian dates, it just makes the article even larger. This presents the problem that, in the history of games, there have been several video games released that were not released in the big three regions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How many Australian-based video game developers lack a branch elsewhere in the world? And adding Australian dates is precisely what your asking for. By day you complain that certain dates are missing and must be accounted for and by night you say they should all be deleted. Pick one. You seem to have completely missed the example I made directly above your post. How is an Australian exclusive Wii game a problem now? If there are in fact games that have never left that country then find out what they are, put the information together and list them where appropriate. Or make a new list of those several games. No one's stopping you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't discussed Australian dates at all since the beginning. And your example completely ignores that despite having exhausted almost every logical situation besides removing all but the first release date, and you're proposing we add even MORE? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You, Link, are the one who wanted to add the Australian dates. This whole thing started because you wanted those dates added. That example is a direct response to your question that started off this segment, "what would you do if a Wii game was released and was exclusive to Australia?". It also allows for the inclusion of the Australian dates you want so badly to boot. With the implementation of the date template we're going to knock dozens of Kilobytes off the article without having to delete anything, and any additional dates will take a fraction of the space they used to. Add the removal of the exclusivity and the developers column and the article is much, much leaner than it used to be. A split will be inevitable if Wii games keep coming out as fast as they are but this will hold it off for a while. Splits are not the only way to deal with article size but they are a valid way. Anyone who read the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines knows that. When the date template overhaul is complete I'll look at the total size and decide whether or not I want to withdrawal my suggestion for a split, until then I still think it's one of the many ways we can deal with this problem without removing information that I and others feel help the article be more useful. I'm doing my best to work with you Link and coming up with ideas that meet you and me and the others somewhere in the middle. You're rude, negatively sarcastic and callus towards others and you keep insisting that people treat you with a respect you never show but I'm going to give this one more shot. If you're just going to shoot down each and every attempt to come to a compromise with you, we're just going to stop trying and do our best to improve the article with or without your approval. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Only being able to sort by first release is a step towards removing subsequent dates altogether. I think a separate list for games published locally in minor regions would be best, if needed. Aether7 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just remove the release dates altogether? If people want to find out when a game came out in a particular region, they can just check the individual game's article, can't they? I mean, for the most part, this list will be here to tell readers what games have been (or will eventually be) released for the system - the release date is hardly on their mind, and the individual game articles usually have release dates for all regions anyway. It would also save us the headaches of determining which regions' release dates should be on this list. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 06:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That very thing is where this started. Link removed all dates from the article without any kind of discussion. The result was repeated reverts of his edit by multiple editors. Every now and again someone else comes along that thinks the dates are unimportant but the bulk of the editors here feel they have a purpose, as do I. Readers can get major information about a game release at a glance instead of clicking on each link (some of which are still red). Link's original argument was that this list was noninclusive of the equally important Australian release dates which are often different from the game's European release date - the location most Aussie games come from. His answer was that none of them belonged on the list and when he was overruled he began arguing that they needed to be removed due to the article's size. That's when I proposed a split to keep individual article size down without deleting useful information. Other video game lists have done the same and it doesn't make much sense that it should be hotly avoided. A regional split was proposed and actually executed... then reverted by Link sending us back to square one and his continued complaints. Since then other methods to trim the size of the article have been found and are currently being put into place but as it's been said over and over again the release dates are fine and there is nowhere on Wikipedia a standard by which information must be deleted in favor of a smaller article size. Also looking at the example I posted, no determination needs to be made on what dates to and not to add. There's no reason why everything from Japanese to Icelandic release dates can't be included. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I guess following guidelines and being bold is a naughty thing.
2. They split by section, not date. It's three separate, 100% non-redundant articles you're comparing to, not three redundant articles.
3. Suddenly, the necessity to make sure that the article's size is not absurdely large is not a reason to NOT add additional content? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-spliting by regions would solve the Australia release dates. The North American list would only be 64 kilobytes long. See User:Wiki131wiki/List of Wii games (North America) Wiki131wiki (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That actually looks pretty good, Wiki. With the removal of the other excess the regional pages don't seem to be as bad. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nicely done Wiki. With efficient use of space like that, a couple more columns with useful info like genre and rating could be added and still have room to grow. This is ideal. Aether7 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1. So you're either going to create a list for every single region a Wii title can be released in, or have an incomplete list?
2. And yes, of course they "don't seem as bad", considering that you always supported them. At no point is the problem of expansion addressed in splitting by region - what do you do when each region list becomes too big?
3. Oh, right, there's that thing that people said wasn't happening - a user using the reduction of size as an excuse to add as much useless content as possible. Inevitably, each of these region lists is going to grow too large, and adding excess content would make it worse. No logical scenario exists to deal with that, and Wikipedia guidelines say that articles should be stable, and creating lists that will have to be reduced, split yet again, or merged back, is so far away from stable I don't even have a wacky simile for it. And just a question, how does that solve it? I'm sure that these lists, which only cover three portions of the entire world in spite of the fact that other portions are legitimate gaming regions, will become featured. Even though there's the potential for them to be unstable in that they can be incomplete simply by a game being only released in Australia. Which would mean that in spite of the fact that there are ways of having a COMPLETE list of Wii games, we instead choose to have an incomplete list solely for the purpose of having three release dates that you could see in the articles that are linked to on the list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Those are our only two options, No? Region lists can be added, but I think a logical stopping point is where Nintendo stops featuring them.
2. When region list become too big we discuss and reduce it as we are doing here. I don't forsee further splitting.
3. What would be useless is info that does not help navigate to the game articles. Aether7 (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

May I ask how useful this is? People who look for "all the best games" for the Wii would have to look through three separate lists of mostly redundant content to find one or two great games released in only one region. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by rating is ESRB (which by the way is region specific), not rating as in "all the best games". That is not appropriate because it is opinion. Aether7 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone comes to this list looking for what's good on the Wii, or what franchises are covered on the Wii, they have to look through ALL three lists, since there's certainly at least one good game that's only been released in NA, EU, or JP. Are you suggesting that they have to look at what is essentially the exact same list three times to find all of the best titles for the Wii? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If a game is released in a minor region the game could be listed as follows: Wiki131wiki (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Title	Publisher(s)	Japan	Europe	North America
Title of Game (Australia Exclusive)	Publisher Name	Unreleased	Unreleased	Unreleased

Every Wii console is region-specific therefore only games released in the reader's region could be played on their console. I believe NoAlias mentioned this before. Wiki131wiki (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the Wii can be modded, games ARE released in Japan that people are anticipating a NA/PAL release, which do not have NA/PAL release yet, but may be expected to. Pokémon Battle Revolution was released in Japan with no NA date at the time, so to know of this game then (if we did it this way then), they would have to look through multiple lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There could be a list that has the title of any Wii game released in any region. Then, there would be region-specific lists for Europe, Japan, and North America with more information. Wiki131wiki (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So now, you're proposing a FOURTH list? So we'll have a list of every game, a list of games for Europe (and the title is terribly incorrect, since South Africa is sometimes included in the release date for the continent of Europe), a list of games for North America, and a list of games for Japan? The set-up included is patently incomplete. You can't have just three release dates - IGN includes Australia, GameFAQs includes Australia, I think GameSpot does too, why shouldn't Wikipedia's lists? The splitting has become simply insane, you'd be hard-pressed to find a list that has been split into FOUR different lists. Why don't we just take the list of all games you proposed and add the FIRST release date, and mention the regions they've been released to the side? They can check the articles themselves, and before you pull the "red link" card, to be a featured list of video games, you can't have any red links in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about a simple text list not a table. The text list wouldn't take up a lot of space. Wiki131wiki (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And the list would only have a title of the game no other information. That would only be needed if there are other Wii games released in other regions. I don't know of any. Otherwise, there could be a List of Australian exclusive games like AeronPrometheus suggested. Wiki131wiki (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. A fifth list? Wow. Not one of those lists has ANY chance, not even the slightest chance, of being featured. The proposal is just absurd. Four lists for four regions and a complete, text list? Can you provide a reason why there needs to be three release dates on the list -OR- three region lists? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Being featured" is not the goal of any Wikipedia article, being as complete as possible and factual is the only thing worth striving for. Featured Article is a cute award, but the common reader doesn't give a wooden nickle on how many awards an article has. And no, the usefulness of an article is not synonymous with its rating. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh? A featured article is a "prime example of one of the best articles on Wikipedia". I'm lost as to how it's not the goal to make one of the best lists on Wikipedia. And your assessment of what Wikipedia is is absurdely false. Just curious, what does it mean if a list fails the Featured List Candidacy? It means it's not a high quality list. Becoming featured is about establishing quality of the article, not putting the featured article image of it. If it fails the FLC, it's because of the horrible steps taken to avoid removing two release dates (which, for some reason, the question of why we need three release dates is ignored almost every time it is ever asked). Any quality editor would point out that making FOUR different articles is a bit worse of an idea than removing two release dates. So just a question, again, why can't people go to the articles to see the release dates, like they do for genre, multiplayer info, box art, etc.? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I stated that there would be no need for the "complete, text list" if the Australian exclusive list was made. The Australian exclusive list would not be long as well. Also, it would not contain any redundant information. There would not be five redundant articles. Wiki131wiki (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And what about the fact that Europe has many regions, and games can be released in, say, Spain before the UK? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some games that don't have articles yet, that are released in North America already so, Category: Wii Games is not complete. The complete text list would have games from France and Spain if they are exclusive. Wiki131wiki (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You still ignore the fact that there's no reason to include three release dates. If a user wants to know when something came out, they can check the article. And like I said, if an article is a red link on the list, that has to be fixed. So there's no reason why users can't go to the articles to check them, and no reason to have FOUR lists at minimum just so that we can have excess content. If one game on the list is a red link, the list is bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, red links removed. Aether7 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not what Link meant. And if it was, he is wrong. Reverting. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting here for a while. I know that my opinion does not count as much as the opinions of some of you, but I would like to add a little here anyway. First I think that the new edits to reduce the size of the article are very good. The Developer column is indeed not necessarry, and the date format is fine. But I would like to stress again that the release dates are indeed needed. If a user is searching for 'the best game on WII', like _link is saying, then he/she would certainly be interested to know if that game is released for his/her region already. Or if it will ever be released for that region. So please keep the dates in there. NoAlias (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There already is a text listing of Wii games by going to Category: Wii Games. Does anyone know if Australia has a separate regional lockout from Europe? If not, and it is just a different release date then I propose this:

Title	Publisher(s)	Japan	Europe	North America
Title of Game	Publisher Name	Unreleased	Australia Exclusive	Unreleased

That way the Australia exclusive (or South Africa etc.) can still be found when sorting by date. This would make sense for smaller regions that are part of a wider lockout. Aether7 (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What about Spain, France, etc.? All games are not released in the same country in Europe at the same time, and there hasn't been a solution provided. Or an explanation why we need three dates. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Spain and France are part of Europe. Before we stated something to the effect that the releases for individual countries may vary from the regional dates listed. Australia is so far away from Europe, that I think this is a good solution without having to add another set of release dates. Aether7 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Link, if a game is released France and is not released in any other region then "(France Exclusive)" can be written next to the name like I wrote above. Do you know of any France/Spain exclusive games? Wiki131wiki (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. I think that would solve the Australia exclusive issue. Wiki131wiki (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Link, If you could show us some exclusive games for said regions that are an issue, then we could take this discussion further. Right now it is all arbitrary. Aether7 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The set-up has to exist for the sake of not requiring a drastic change if the situation arises where it has to be. It's called preemptively making the article good.

And does that matter? Crayon Shin-chan games only come out in Japan and Spain typically, but if it was released later everywhere else in Europe, what do you do then? The Spanish release date is not the European release date, so calling it the original release date for the entire continent is just silly. The problem lies in that these problems exist and there's no reason to believe that they will not become a hindrance to the article's quality, and in spite of this all, you three choose to ignore it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with _link on this one, at least to an extend. The fact that there have not been any Spain/France exclusive releases does not mean that there will not be any. There are several developers and publishers in various European countries that might/will release games to their domestic market first, before releasing a translated version to other countries. The list should be able to mention this. But the solution that Aether proposes covers this. There is another thing to consider too: I live in The Netherlands and I have a PAL WII. Which means that I can play any Spanish, French or Koratian game on my WII. I cannot play any Japanese or North American game though. So, the fact that a game has been released for one of the countries in the European region is enough information for me. I'm just wondering why nobody mentioned the fact that North America consists of three countries which, undoubtedly, also have slightly different release dates. Aether's solution will be fine when a game is released exclusively in one country, be is Spain, Australia or Canada. NoAlias (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

new game

a new AAA game for the wii. popstar guitar. :) http://wii.ign.com/articles/892/892583p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.193.111 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Resplit (Europe/North America)

This article should be respilt into two articles:

• List of Wii games (Europe)
• List of Wii games (North America)

There is no need for Japan since a Japanese list can be found here. According to the chart below, the majority of the traffic is from North America then, Europe. Japan is not even in the chart. Wiki131wiki (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't do a split based on a graph, Wikipedia isn't a politically influenced project... *looks around*. But it shows that as many people come here from outside the US as inside the US which drives home the need to give the article a global viewpoint. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary for the Japanese list since less than one percent of people in Japan visit the English Wikipedia and there is a Wii game list for Japan, here. Wiki131wiki (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We can still include the Japanese games. We would have one list that has all Wii games released in any region (Austrilia, Japan, France, North America, etc.). This list would only contain the title. Then we could have two region-specific lists for Europe and North America that contains title, publisher, release date, and other information. Wiki131wiki (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a fine point, wiki131. The Japanese list shows release dat, title, publisher and price. Since the price in various contries can differ, it does not make much sense to show the price information in the 'international' lists. A disadvantage is that the Japanese list can not be sorted. Which is something that I love about this list. I totally agree with your proposal, but note that the chart is for Wikipedia contributors, not readers. NoAlias (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Link Removal

Aeron, maybe I did misunderstand Link, but lets discuss this before you revert. It knocks out a few kb without loss of information. If the red is to indicate that an article needs to be created, well you can still tell that it does when it is black. Also, the red makes the list not look as good, incomplete. Shouldn't articles be created first and then link to them? Aether7 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about amassing knowledge and one of the ways that happens is red links, when someone sees a red link that's a sign that information is waiting to be added to Wikipedia. Even if it's just a stub for now, as most of the red links are unreleased games that have only been announced. You don't strip red links from any article, even lists, it goes against the project's goal. Red links do not blemish an article, unless that's how you choose to view it. And no one is stopping anyone from making the articles right now, the question is: Is this a list of games released and upcoming for the Nintendo Wii or a current list of Wikipedia articles related to Wii games? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess that makes sense. Thanks, Aether7 (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)